AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director complied with section 37ZO and provided detailed reasons that there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim; the Director's factual findings were lawful, fair and not irrational; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 713
Parties
Applicant: Ahmed Mohammad Sujon; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL2138/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Standards (wednesbury), Family Unity
Source Language
en
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process Judicial Review Standards (wednesbury) +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Mohammad Sujon

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's request to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim is reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success to justify leave to apply for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made to prevent abuse of the court's process by repeated unmeritorious non-refoulement claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Director complied with section 37ZO and provided detailed reasons that there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim; the Director's factual findings were lawful, fair and not irrational; the applicant therefore failed to show a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects and leave was refused; because the applicant had repeatedly re-litigated an unmeritorious claim after exhausting appeals, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and proportionality to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent further abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Leave Application dismissed.
  • A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) prohibiting the applicant from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without the leave of the Court of First Instance.